I'm still not sure what excuse a movie that has made over $400 million dollars needs to make?

Click to expand...

None at all, obviously. Some of the TOS-Onlies just won't let go of the hope that at some point Abrams will fail, on the ridiculous premise that if this happens Paramount will return to making entertainment of the kind they enjoyed decades ago.

Click to expand...

Nonsense, and quite defensive of a film which has a tendency to generate legitimate questions--like that driving this thread.

Click to expand...

I answered it pretty well. Anyone who thinks Trek is in league with Superman or Iron Man is simply delusional. Just because I personally love it doesn't mean everyone does.

1) Who said anything about fans ? I said attendance.
2) I didn't say 400 million viewers. I said 400 million, meaning dollars. I also said I wasn't talking about profit from that figure, but attendance.

These numbers tell the story. Ticket sales from theaters provided 100 percent of the studios' revenues in 1948; in 2003, they accounted for less than 20 percent. Instead, home entertainment provided 82 percent of the 2003 revenues. In terms of profits, the studios can make an even larger proportion from home entertainment since most, if not all, of the theatrical revenues go to pay for the prints and advertising required to get audiences into theaters. (Video, DVDs, and TV have much lower marketing costs.)

This profit reality has transformed the way Hollywood operates. Theatrical releases now essentially serve as launching platforms for videos, DVDs, network TV, pay TV, games, and a host of other products.

That point is not in contention between you and me. I merely remarked that Superman Returns performed similarly and they rebooted after a 7 year hiatus. Seeing Abrams is committed to SW, I don't see why Viacom/Paramount doesn't do the same thing.

That point is not in contention between you and me. I merely remarked that Superman Returns performed similarly and they rebooted after a 7 year hiatus. Seeing Abrams is committed to SW, I don't see why Viacom/Paramount doesn't do the same thing.

Click to expand...

The biggest thing is that Paramount is seeing a growth in International markets with Star Trek Into Darkness. They won't do an about face now when those markets are showing an increased interest in this version of Trek.

For a least the past several days, the Blu-ray 3D edition of Star Trek Into Darkness has been in the first position. The Star Trek Into Darkness Blu-ray and DVD combo is right behind it in second place. It's not often that a film's pre-orders are so overwhelmingly strong that it can command the bestsellers list with multiple skus.

For a least the past several days, the Blu-ray 3D edition of Star Trek Into Darkness has been in the first position. The Star Trek Into Darkness Blu-ray and DVD combo is right behind it in second place. It's not often that a film's pre-orders are so overwhelmingly strong that it can command the bestsellers list with multiple skus.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yep -m in effect - the theatre release pays for the filming costs and most of the ad costs - and essentially helps set up later home video, PPV, and pay cable movie channel (HBO, et.) <--- And that's where the studio rakes in the dough. They DO want good word of mouth in theatres and a decent run to bolster that as mush as possible.

Uhm Viacom/Paramount OWNS Star Trek and Bad Robot is just a production company. If Paramount isn't happy, they can easily be replaced.

Click to expand...

Keep hanging onto that dream. I'll see you at 'Star Trek 3 produced by Bad Robot' in 2016.

Click to expand...

Hit the brakes. Yminale is correct: any contracted production company can be booted from a film, as Viacom/Paramount does indeed own all things Star Trek, and can do whatever they wish to it (including bad things such as TOS-R and nuTrek). Whether or not BR has any ivolvement in a hypothetical third film is irrelevant--if P/V decide to pull the plug, it will happen.

Hit the brakes. Yminale is correct: any contracted production company can be booted from a film, as Viacom/Paramount does indeed own all things Star Trek, and can do whatever they wish to it (including bad things such as TOS-R and nuTrek). Whether or not BR has any ivolvement in a hypothetical third film is irrelevant--if P/V decide to pull the plug, it will happen.

Click to expand...

You're right, it's a brilliant idea to boot the production company that gave you the two highest-grossing Trek features ever and have penetrated international markets in a way Star Trek never has before.

That point is not in contention between you and me. I merely remarked that Superman Returns performed similarly and they rebooted after a 7 year hiatus. Seeing Abrams is committed to SW, I don't see why Viacom/Paramount doesn't do the same thing.

Click to expand...

Excellent point. Superman Returns was rebooted because they wanted to incorporate the character in the "Nolanized" DC Comics film universe, so a latter-day Donner-esque sequel would not fit, no matter how it performed at the box office. If a truly creative director/writer stated an interest in directing a ST film (particularly after having his own hit), and V/P thought he would literally take a 21st century ST where no ST has gone before, a reboot would be considered.

It happened with Superman Returns, and it happened with the Raimi Spider-Man series (all highly successful, but did not matter).

That's not "proof," and you're not right. That's an eight year-old article on Slate that doesn't support your simplistic claim to begin with, if you read the whole thing.

But tell you what - since you think random links to outdated stuff are educational, why don't you go ahead and read a bit further into some of the rest of what that author has posted online about the way films are financed and how they turn a profit. You might actually start to get an idea of how much more complex the subject is than the "multiples of the production budget" foolishness you're repeating.

...any contracted production company can be booted from a film, as Viacom/Paramount does indeed own all things Star Trek...

Click to expand...

So what? That has nothing to do with what's going to happen in this case, as you probably actually know. Bad Robot will produce a third Star Trek movie for Paramount, to be released in 2016, with a budget similar to the last two. But continue trying to misdirect and distract.

Hit the brakes. Yminale is correct: any contracted production company can be booted from a film, as Viacom/Paramount does indeed own all things Star Trek, and can do whatever they wish to it (including bad things such as TOS-R and nuTrek). Whether or not BR has any ivolvement in a hypothetical third film is irrelevant--if P/V decide to pull the plug, it will happen.

Click to expand...

It's good to know that hate can defeat anything, including logic.

You're right, it's a brilliant idea to boot the production company that gave you the two highest-grossing Trek features ever and have penetrated international markets in a way Star Trek never has before.

Click to expand...

See my post on the Raimi Spider-Man films, which were leaps and bounds above the box office of nuTrek, but that series was rebooted with no hesitation.

Don't blind yourself with on-bended-knee devoiton to nuTrek, that you glide over historical reference proving the opposing point.

Don't blind yourself with on-bended-knee devoiton to nuTrek, that you glide over historical reference proving the opposing point.

Click to expand...

It's hilarious that you say that while I'm sitting here watching A Private Little War.

The general idea was that Spider-Man would be rebooted after three films and that the Nolan Batman films would be rebooted after three films. The was no sequel to Superman Returns because it just wasn't a very good movie.

General audiences seem to like Abrams Trek, Into Darkness will out perform Star Trek 2009. Paramount isn't going to ditch a production company that has a property that was completely dead on the upswing.